4 ms·

That came later iirc - initially they were thinking of using them prior to running infantry in. I think there are old public test videos where they actually di

That came later iirc - initially they were thinking of using them prior to running infantry in. I think there are old public test videos where they actually did this kind of thing. I also recall a group of scientists trying to elevate the understanding of the e-risk (pugwash conference?). Basically people were becoming too comfortable with the idea of nuclear war because they knew how to “duck and cover” and had a little bomb shelter in the yard. See this: https://youtu.be/IKqXu-5jw60 https://youtu.be/IKqXu-5jw60 Dr. Strangelove is also worth watching for a satirical take from that time.

tablespoon 5y ago
>> The (proper) strategic idea was as a deterrent, not _wanting_ to use them in an offensive manner. The strategy was in making an attack on "us" carry the high probability of annihilation for the attacker, thereby discouraging it -- it wasn't about "hey, let's nuke that country, then we'll gain an advantage". > That came later iirc - initially they were thinking of using them prior to running infantry in. I think you have to differentiate strategic and battlefield usages. IIRC, some people considered using them strategically when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind. However, the Soviets had them within five years and the Chinese had them by 1965, I think. I think tactical battlefield uses were on the table for much longer, because NATO felt like it could not win a conventional war in Europe, but that may have taken the form a nuking a corn field on your border (maybe even in your territory) that the invading army is passing through. It sounds like Russia may still have similar plans ("escalate to de-escalate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon).
- genericuser314 5y ago
  It's impossible to know what would have happened if they hadn't, but if Julius and Ethel Rosenberg helping the Soviets achieve nuclear parity prevented the US from "using them when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind" then they should be thought of like Snowdens or Assanges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Soviet_nuclear_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Sov...
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > It's impossible to know what would have happened if they hadn't, but if Julius and Ethel Rosenberg helping the Soviets achieve nuclear parity prevented the US from "using them when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind" then they should be thought of like Snowdens or Assanges. Eh, no. The Rosenbergs were consciously acting as spies for a foreign power, which is treasonous conduct no matter how you look at it. Putting them next to Snowden makes Snowden look bad. At least publicly, he made every effort to avoid doing anything like what they did. Also, IIRC, MacArthur was relieved of command in Korea because he wanted to nuke the Chinese, and that was decades before they even had an atomic weapon to retaliate with. That means you can't point to nuclear parity as the only reason the US didn't use them after the end of WWII.
    - genericuser314 5y ago
      The degree to which our ethics should be consequentialist, or they should evaluate intent is worth discussing, but as consequences become more significant intent becomes more insignificant. I don't care if someone 'looks bad', or breaks any law if they prevent nuclear war. Stanislav Petrov disobeyed orders in the face of "30 layers of verification" telling him to report 5 incoming nuclear missiles.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > I don't care if someone 'looks bad', or breaks any law if they prevent nuclear war. The idea that the Rosenbergs prevented a nuclear war is wild speculation on top of wild speculation. However, comparing Snowden to the Rosenbergs is exactly the kind of thing that people do to smear Snowden.
    - pasabagi 5y ago
      Eh, they sent the USSR a couple of drawings of circles, and Ethel Rosenberg apparently did some typing. They were, loosely, spies for a foreign power, but their impact was absolutely negligible and their execution was essentially a lynching.
- dsimms 5y ago
  or at sea! Nuclear mines, torpedos, etc. A lot easier to take out that SSBN or carrier I guess.
malloryerik 5y ago
Something unforgettable here: Nuclear test in China, with supporting attacks by infantry and cavalry, all in grand heroic style. 3 1/2 minutes: https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80 https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80 or the quick version: https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80?t=81 https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80?t=81
- rpeden 5y ago
  Looks like a similar idea to the Desert Rock tests [1]. Though I don't think any of the Desert Rock soldiers galloped onto an atomic battlefield on horseback while wearing a gas mask and wielding a sword like one of the guys in your video did. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX-1MIMr2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX-1MIMr2E
  - malloryerik 5y ago
    Interesting, thanks.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Though I don't think any of the Desert Rock soldiers galloped onto an atomic battlefield on horseback while wearing a gas mask and wielding a sword like one of the guys in your video did. I should note the horses are wearing gas masks too.

tablespoon 5y ago

>> The (proper) strategic idea was as a deterrent, not _wanting_ to use them in an offensive manner. The strategy was in making an attack on "us" carry the high probability of annihilation for the attacker, thereby discouraging it -- it wasn't about "hey, let's nuke that country, then we'll gain an advantage". > That came later iirc - initially they were thinking of using them prior to running infantry in. I think you have to differentiate strategic and battlefield usages. IIRC, some people considered using them strategically when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind. However, the Soviets had them within five years and the Chinese had them by 1965, I think. I think tactical battlefield uses were on the table for much longer, because NATO felt like it could not win a conventional war in Europe, but that may have taken the form a nuking a corn field on your border (maybe even in your territory) that the invading army is passing through. It sounds like Russia may still have similar plans ("escalate to de-escalate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon).

genericuser314 5y ago
It's impossible to know what would have happened if they hadn't, but if Julius and Ethel Rosenberg helping the Soviets achieve nuclear parity prevented the US from "using them when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind" then they should be thought of like Snowdens or Assanges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Soviet_nuclear_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Sov...
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > It's impossible to know what would have happened if they hadn't, but if Julius and Ethel Rosenberg helping the Soviets achieve nuclear parity prevented the US from "using them when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind" then they should be thought of like Snowdens or Assanges. Eh, no. The Rosenbergs were consciously acting as spies for a foreign power, which is treasonous conduct no matter how you look at it. Putting them next to Snowden makes Snowden look bad. At least publicly, he made every effort to avoid doing anything like what they did. Also, IIRC, MacArthur was relieved of command in Korea because he wanted to nuke the Chinese, and that was decades before they even had an atomic weapon to retaliate with. That means you can't point to nuclear parity as the only reason the US didn't use them after the end of WWII.
  - genericuser314 5y ago
    The degree to which our ethics should be consequentialist, or they should evaluate intent is worth discussing, but as consequences become more significant intent becomes more insignificant. I don't care if someone 'looks bad', or breaks any law if they prevent nuclear war. Stanislav Petrov disobeyed orders in the face of "30 layers of verification" telling him to report 5 incoming nuclear missiles.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > I don't care if someone 'looks bad', or breaks any law if they prevent nuclear war. The idea that the Rosenbergs prevented a nuclear war is wild speculation on top of wild speculation. However, comparing Snowden to the Rosenbergs is exactly the kind of thing that people do to smear Snowden.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    Eh, they sent the USSR a couple of drawings of circles, and Ethel Rosenberg apparently did some typing. They were, loosely, spies for a foreign power, but their impact was absolutely negligible and their execution was essentially a lynching.
dsimms 5y ago
or at sea! Nuclear mines, torpedos, etc. A lot easier to take out that SSBN or carrier I guess.

malloryerik 5y ago

Something unforgettable here: Nuclear test in China, with supporting attacks by infantry and cavalry, all in grand heroic style. 3 1/2 minutes: https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80 https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80 or the quick version: https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80?t=81 https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80?t=81

rpeden 5y ago
Looks like a similar idea to the Desert Rock tests [1]. Though I don't think any of the Desert Rock soldiers galloped onto an atomic battlefield on horseback while wearing a gas mask and wielding a sword like one of the guys in your video did. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX-1MIMr2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX-1MIMr2E
- malloryerik 5y ago
  Interesting, thanks.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Though I don't think any of the Desert Rock soldiers galloped onto an atomic battlefield on horseback while wearing a gas mask and wielding a sword like one of the guys in your video did. I should note the horses are wearing gas masks too.